Really nice. Wish I'd done that.Critique? The lighting doesn't quite hang together for me: the foreground seems a little bright for the rest of the picture; the water and sky are each beautiful, but almost seem to come from different pictures. Just my opinion, it is a fine contribution.Scott

Hi There, and welcome to the list! Sloped horizons are easy to correct in something like LR or PS. Actually, with the WA lens you used there's a slight curvature to the horizon and this could also be corrected in post. I agree with Scott about the lighting, and I don't much like that 'square' shadow just above the rocks, on the right side, which looks an awful lot to me like a camera sitting on a tripod. Cameras see Everything.

Mike.

Logged

If your mind is attuned to beauty, you find beauty in everything.~ Jean Cooke ~

Okay, I have decided that it is time to crank up the critique section a notch or two. The responses I have read lately make me physically sick. Don't worry Abbey, it is not your image specifically (and welcome to the forum obv). I am presuming that if you post here, that you want constructive suggestions, so I will try to do my best to add suggestions and alternatives to my points of comment.

Who am I to comment. Well, nobody, but I believe that I may have enough credits on this forum to at least trigger the more knowledgable people to contribute. So, hopefully for you they will respond on these points of discussion.

I have attached your image with some lines roughly drawn along the lines noticeable in the image. These lines depict edges of contrast or repeating objects and can help to understand how a viewer might dissect the image consciously or subconsciously.

And here is what I see:

1. Lacks subject. There is no landscape of note, the silhouette in the background is obviously not interesting enough to stand on its own. The boulders aren't explicitly interesting and placed horribly in the frame.

2. Objects fall off the frame, they are not embedded in the frame, there is no space to breath. Position of objects could be more balanced. This image needs much more space to the left, and either some at the bottom, or less at the bottom and right.

3. Nothing of interest is happening, either in the image, between the lines or on the intersection of the lines. Intersection of the lines generally seem to fall outside the frame, but there is no hint of something interesting happening there either. To elaborate on that: think about an audience staring intensely at something outside the frame. The staring audience and emotions on their faces may itself be the intrigue of the image, even though the actual event may not be depicted...

4. Movement in the frame has no function. The movement in the clouds and in the water appears to mean nothing and therefore do not contribute anything to the atmosphere or mood of the image. Either more movement is required with a sense of direction, or less. More movement could for example depict the incoming or receding tide which alludes to the passing of time creating an interesting "juxtaposition" with a "timeless" landscape.

5. As noted, the horizon is slanted and distorted. You should definitely take care of those type of details because it could easily be mistaken for sloppiness which isn't thoughtful towards a viewer that you want to engage. In other words: if you want your audience to take a more thorough look at your picture, it is your prerogative if you will, to at least try to be thorough in your execution of capture and reproduction.

Because of the points above, the image to me tends towards an image from the well known sunset genre. You think you captured a nice image, but you only captured what is generally considered to be nice colors.